Principle, Praxis, and the Politics of Educational Reform in Meiji Japan

1. Method in Search of a Theory

18 1 Method in Search of a Theory The first step toward a preparation for the educational training of children should be to ascertain the nature of the mind, its condition in childhood, its natural modes of development, and the processes best adapted to secure a proper discipline of their faculties. When this is understood, it will be an easy matter to adapt instruction to them. N. A. Calkins, Primary Object Lessons It is one of the functions of ideology to “naturalize ” social reality, to make it seem as innocent and unchangeable as Nature itself. Ideology seeks to convert culture into Nature, and the “natural” sign is one of its weapons. . . . Ideology, in this sense, is a kind of contemporary mythology, a realm which has purged itself of ambiguity and alternative possibility. Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction Most Japanese historians attribute the introduction of developmental education into Japan to a haphazard process of cross-cultural borrowing during the early to mid-1870s. They note that the Western (chiefly American) pedagogical texts used in the nation’s first normal schools were randomly selected and display little intertextual consistency. Indications that teachers and students in those schools managed only a superficial understanding of the doctrine are, in turn, apparent from the manner in which it was disseminated: through blind imitation of teaching practices demonstrated by Marion Scott or described in these texts, rather than through critical discussion or experimental application of the principles underlying the teaching methods. This chapter will substantiate the latter assertion, that Japanese and American educators often did represent the doctrine in similar ways during the mid-1870s, both while expounding its principles and while trying to put them into practice. Rather than being proof of a complete, unmediated transmission of pedagogical ideas and practices from one society to another, however, these similarities are really evidence of common problems confronting educators in both countries. Enlightenment Ideology Members of the intelligentsia who championed the drive to civilize and enlighten the masses in the early Meiji period customarily attributed their actions to a combination of praiseworthy motives: patriotic concern for the future of Japan as it confronted the twin crises of domestic turmoil and foreign threats to its sovereignty, coupled with a humanitarian desire to release the common man from the shackles of feudal economic exploitation and political subservience. To be sure, these were salient concerns that also influenced educational policy in the early Meiji period.@ It is possible, however, to suggest a third, distinctly political motive that was prompted by the Meiji Restoration itself. For although the Restoration ended more than 250 years of feudalism under the Tokugawa shogunate, it marked an uncertain beginning for the new government under the Meiji emperor, in which various political rivals and competing ideologies struggled for supremacy.^ Evidence of this struggle is not limited to the political sphere but can be found in the educational arena as well. One of the most cele- 20 Method in Search of a Theory brated confrontations took place in 1869, when nativist (kokugaku), Confucian, and Western Studies scholars on the faculty of the newly established government-supported university all vied for the mantle of imperial legitimacy under the new regime. The confrontation was both political and epistemological in scope, since the outcome would determine not only who would guide official policy on education, but the very definition of knowledge that would serve as the basis for official policy. The politics of the moment appeared to auger well for the nativists, who interpreted the Restoration as a victory in their effort to “restore imperial rule and return to antiquity” (òsei fukko) and a vindication of their escalating war against contaminating foreign doctrines: Confucianism, Buddhism, and Western Studies. Supporters of Confucianism, for their part, had the weight of tradition on their side. Neo-Confucianism was the nucleus of intellectual activity for much of the Tokugawa period and was belatedly proclaimed the “official doctrine for all time” by the shogunate in 1790. It is significant, therefore, that the Western Studies experts prevailed. Following lengthy debate, the government closed the campuses where nativism and Confucianism were being studied in 1870. It cited irreconcilable differences not only between the nativists and Confucian scholars, but also between them and the school’s chief administrators, who objected to their collective conservatism and demanded that the school pursue the course of civilization and enlightenment.‘ As a result, only the faculties and students engaged...